Sivut kuvina

and those which, as expressing independent existence, have also their own measure in themselves; for from this it may be discovered, although it is not quite after our manner of viewing the subject, how far the theory of the disposition may be placed among the former, and the soul only among the latter. Now without taking into consideration this general reference to the previous dialogues up to this point, by means of the connection between the doctrine of knowledge and that of immortality, further allusions to other earlier matter more or less connected with that pervading and principal point, are not wanting. Thus, for example, besides the quotation already alluded to, we are also further put in mind of a passage in the Menon, by what is here said of public and civil virtue; and it would seem as if Plato here wished to show that this inferior kind of virtue, properly speaking only a shadow of the true, may even exist without being based upon any independent or true principle; and that view in the Statesman, of the natural qualifications which lead some to this and others to that species of virtue, forms as it were, the transition between the two. So also, when the true virtue is spoken of, and it is described to be rationality, the way in which the Protagoras is referred to, and every possible misunderstanding of the dialectics there employed is once for all now removed, necessarily supposes the existence of all the intervening dialogues between that and the Phaedon. For we are now first enabled to learn, what nevertheless necessarily belongs to the subject of that /dialogue, that the comparative estimation of different ! degrees of pleasure against one another, cannot constitute any kind of knowledge. Moreover, the derivation from the dead, of those who are in the natal state, which is here taken generally from a natural law affecting every created being, has been already given in the Statesman in a mythical description, which every one will easily recognize as the earlier of the two. So also, in the very same place, the first foundation is laid of the most sublime expansion of, and most general speculation upon, the idea of the soul, as it is said that even heaven and earth are participative of the nature of the body, which must thus necessarily possess a soul, so that, viewed on this side also, the Phaedon comes between that work and the Timaeus, as preparing the way for the latter by more minute explanations and accurate definitions. In like manner, when we consider closely what is here said of pleasure, we can scarcely suppose that it is of an earlier date than the discussion in the Gorgias, so much more dispassionately is it introduced, and drawn from views so much more profound: while we must at once recognize it as earlier than the Philebus, which first contains the full discussion of the pleasant in this point of view, nay, it seems almost as if Plato here wished to prepare the way for a still necessary discussion of this subject, which was to be more mature, more tranquil, and with more regard for nature. But for all who from the Phaedon as their point of view, take a survey of the works hitherto communicated, the comparison of this dialogue with the Phaedrus will have most attraction from the manifold points of contact between the two. And, it will probably be the case with most, that if they put aside the Phaedon for a short time, and then fix their attention upon the Phaedrus, they will find in it particular points which appear Q Q

to them too similar to allow of a great interval between the two ; and even many in which they discover a foretaste of the Timaeus, and they might on that account consider the Phaedrus as later than the Phaedon; whence I explaim to myself the fact, that this opinion also has not been without its followers. Whoever, on the other hand, places both works at an equal distance from the Timaeus, and is consequently in a con

dition to survey the whole system uniformly from the

two, can hardly, I think, fail to feel surprise when he sees how much more perfect the Phaedon appears; wiser, and worthy of more mature age; so that it stands to the Phaedrus precisely in the relation of the dying Socrates to him who still hopes to learn much from the people in the market-place. For even the mythical part, to go no further, how much more sober and judicious is it ! In this dialogue we hear no more of a supercelestial region, and of a dazzling gaze at ideas, and no necessity arises to assist the dry uneertainty of them by an indistinct image; but it is sufficient, in order to demonstrate the revolution of the soul, to give a theory of the earth, which, though constructed indeed upon lore of poets and wise men, is taken from later sources, and such as contain more of a presentiment of science. Nay, though a special meaning is not to be looked for in every particular, we should, nevertheless, scarcely be disposed to disagree with any one who might suppose that what is said of Socrates' treatment of the AEsopic fables, is a justification of the fact, that in the majority of the Platonic myths so little original invention is contained. And how much more finished is the philosophic talent in the Phaedon, how much more definite the connection of the author's own views, how differently, compared with that youthful joy in the first elements, is the philosophical method spoken of, after long practice and complex knowledge; so that certainly in the Phaedrus, the young Plato might more easily make Socrates speak so like a youth, than in the Phaedon so like a sage. Nay, even if it is to be supposed that Plato, when he wrote the Phaedrus, already professed an acquaintance with the Pythagorean writings, which does however to us never seem necessary, how very differently is this school treated of, when it appears in the light of distant mythical wisdom, and here, where Plato sets to work to complete what is insufficient in their doctrines. And then, as to the proof given in the Phaedrus, of the immortality of the soul; will any one bring himself to believe that this would be an acceptable supplement, after all the discussion in our dialogue upon that point? Or, must not every one see, on the contrary, that Plato set aside this proof, and as it were disowned it, because he now shrank from calling the soul, as he there does, the original principle; or God, who is the real original principle, soul? Those, therefore, who believe the Phaedon to have been written immediately after the death of Socrates, and the Phaedrus not before his Egyptian travels, what proof can they bring forward but that already anticipated in the Introduction to the Phaedrus, except perhaps, on the one side, the grand discovery, if we are not the first to make them a present of it, that in the Phaedrus Simmias is ranked above Phaedrus as an occasion of arguments, because he occasioned those in the Phaedon; and on the other side, those particular passages in the Phaedrus in which doctrinal points are

enunciated with greater precision than appears suitable to a first piece, and in which words occur, which suppose the existence of investigations not to be found except in subsequent dialogues P But any one must see at once how little that circumstance will avail against all that we have established; and thus, it may be left for every reader to explain for himself, how these few passages in the Phaedrus arose from the dialectic tendency of the dialogue, even when the Platonic philosophy was yet in an entirely undeveloped state, so that there may be no occasion for the subterfuge, that they were first introduced on a subsequent elaboration of the work, although they look sufficiently as if they had been so introduced. Finally, without any reference to the Phaedrus, there would be nothing to say in favour of so early a position of the Phaedon, except that so elaborate a description of Socrates would have been in its place only a short time after his death, and that the passage in the Theaetetus about the flight from this world, is intended to be an elucidation of the wish for death in the Phaedon; and the allegation of such arguments is sufficiently tantamount to bringing to light the weakness of the cause. This analysis, into which all that there was to say by way of preface upon the subject of the dialogue, has at the same time spontaneously worked itself, will, it is hoped, secure to the Phaedon its place between the Symposium and the Philebus. Beyond this, we find no immediate chronological traces, though several indications do indeed point to a somewhat advanced period. We will draw attention to two only. In the first place, the way in which Socrates not only in the myth describes the locality of the Hellenic education as the

« EdellinenJatka »